Jonathan Turley: Statements By Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt ‘Demolish the Two Official Reviews That Cleared Him’

[Rigby5]

By Byrd's standard, hundreds of rioters could have been shot. I fully agree. That only one was shot proves how much the Capitol Police were trying to use restraint.

I can guarantee you that if a bunch of riotous Antifa types were attacking my home, I'm unloading on them, not just a single shot.

Good job, Officer Byrd. He was the thin blue line. I support the police.

The capital is a public building intended for the very political expression these demonstrators were attempting to promote.
So their actions were perfectly legal.
Nothing at all like attacking a private home, which would be a violation of the individual rights of the home owner.

Byrd violated the principles of law because he was not defending himself or anyone else from a lethal threat.
I do not support the police, and there is no legal basis for police to even exist really.
The idea police have superior authority to any average citizen is totally and completely illegal.

 

[otto105]

Wrong.
Anyone who is anti-Trump, like me, knows that deliberate murder of an unarmed person is an incredibly dangerous precedent.
Regardless of who is president or which party is currently in control, there have to be standards that prevent just wholesale abuse of individual rights, or else this becomes an authoritarian dictatorship. If any political opinions are not protected, then none are safe any longer.
If Babbitt can be murdered without punishment, then anyone can be and lots of people will be in the future.
"It's the end of the world, and you know it".

Was ansti boobitt in the process of committing a crime? Was she following police orders?

 

[otto105]

But the point is shooting anyone was illegal.
The capital cop only has authority use lethal force is under direct threat of lethal attack.
He has to personally observer the physical threat.
No such treat was visible.

Just replace the cop with anyone else, like your neighbor.
Would they have been justified as being under a physical threat?
No, of course not, since Ashlie had no visible weapon.
So then your neighbor could not legally shoot, and then neither could a cop.
The idea cops have more authority to shoot is a false misconception that only exists in dangerously authoritarian governments.

Ansti is dead because she believed a lie.

 

[Rigby5]

Ummm?
Maybe possibly you should wanna re-think that one poster Rigby.

The "only reason you can't legally shoot"......... is because cops should know better than to be a deadly threat to you?

And that's the "only reason"?

Really? No kidding?
It would then be 'legal' to shoot 'em if they hadn't been taught that?
And if they were a deadly threat.....could you still legally shoot 'em?

IMHO, that sorta kinda sounds like blaming the victim for being a victim.

But honestly, the good poster's suggestion is, well, ridiculous.

No dis intended.

Wrong.
Clearly cops are armed, aggressive, abusive, and in violation of the law when they often shoot people who are not a deadly threat, like those trying to escape.
Cops have no legal basis.
Legislators can not legally create authority for cops.
Legislators do not have that authority, so can not then delegate it to cops.
The ONLY source of legal authority is a democratic republic is the inherent rights of individuals.
And cops can act under our delegated rights if we want them to, but not to do things we can not do, like shoot at those trying to escape.
And since cops do shoot those trying to escape, or illegal ni-knock-warrants like with Breonna Taylor, then police have caused themselves to have become the enemy of justice as much as any criminals.

 

[Rigby5]

Was ansti boobitt in the process of committing a crime? Was she following police orders?

No, Babbitt was not committing a crime.
The person who broke the window in likely had committed a crime, but Babbitt was not.
Not following police orders is not a crime, but instead is an act of patriotism, considering police always have been abusive, in every known society.
Police legally are supposed to follow OUR orders, not be giving orders.

 

[Rigby5]

Ansti is dead because she believed a lie.

I agree with you that she was wrong about the election, but you can't shoot someone for being wrong.
And her actions harmed no one, so you can't shoot her legally.

 

[Dragonlady]

Jonathan Turley:​

Statements By Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt ‘Demolish the Two Official Reviews That Cleared Him’​

“Under Byrd’s interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6.”​

Jonathan Turley: Statements By Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt ‘Demolish the Two Official Reviews That Cleared Him’

"Under Byrd's interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6."

legalinsurrection.com

29 Aug 2021 ~~ By Stacey Matthews
Numerous aspects of what unfolded during the Capitol riot have been hotly debated in the months since it happened, but few have been as contentious and emotional as the debate over the officer-involved shooting death of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt.
The 35-year-old Air Force veteran was shot and killed by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6th after she tried to climb through a glass-paneled door after parts of it had been shattered by another rioter, identified as Zachary Jordan Alam.
Babbitt, who reportedly had been standing next to Alam, was shot.
n April, the Biden Department of Justice announced they had closed the investigation into the fatal shooting and would not be pursuing criminal charges against Byrd, citing “insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”
Just last week, the Capitol Police confirmed a report from NBC News that they had exonerated Byrd, a 28-year veteran of the force. They stated in a press release that Byrd – who they did not name – “will not be facing internal discipline” because in their view Byrd’s conduct “was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”
On the heels of the USCP exonerating Byrd, he did an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, identifying himself publicly for the first time.
Instead of clearing things up, the interview only intensified the debate over his actions and whether they were justified. Here’s a key moment from their back and forth:

Video shot by a person in the crowd showed two officers posted in front of the door. Heavily outnumbered, they eventually stepped aside.​

Byrd said he had no knowledge that any officers were there. Because of the furniture stacked on his side of the door, he also couldn’t make out how many people were on the other side or whether they were carrying weapons.​

“It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side,” he said.​

But he did see the person now known to be Babbitt start coming through the broken glass.​

“I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,” Byrd said. “But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”​

Byrd, who says he has been in hiding since that day and has faced death threats, told Holt it was the first time he’d ever fired his weapon.
Watch an edited version of the interview below:

​

The extended interview can be viewed here.
Georgetown University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who has long been a critic of official media narratives surrounding the shooting, said that instead of confirming that the respective decisions by the DOJ and the Capitol Police not to pursue action against Byrd were the right ones to make that Byrd “proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him” after he admitted he could not determine whether Babbitt was armed:

​

He expanded on his opinion in a piece published at The Hill:

While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters. ​

Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers.​

[…]​

Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.​

I’m not a legal analyst, but I think Turley makes some good points here.



Comment:
Not a single officer at the Capitol that day was threatened with deadly force. If they had been, other rioters would have been shot. “Context” shows that the officer’s lives were not in danger, and no other officer present thought that they were. This includes the officers who had their guns drawn right alongside Byrd; even they did not fire.
Someone crawling through a broken window? Haul them through, put them in zip ties, pass them to another officer to take away, or tell them to sit down and don’t move. Byrd was not a homeowner at night in the dark, defending his home while alone. He was a trained LEO, with armed fellow officers by his side, and still had a barrier between himself and other rioters, who were not known to have been armed (and were, in fact, not armed).
Please note the following:

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r190_14.pdf

Byrd violated the Rules of Engagement of both the Military and Law Enforcement. Had a soldier shot a unarmed civilian under the same circumstances he would have been court martialed.
In incidents involving police shootings, LEO's have been prosecuted for shooting supposed unarmed perpetrators, yet in this case there is no indictment or real investigation. The justification of the murder of Ashli Babbitt is purely political and Byrd has virtually gotten away with murder.
Succinctly said. If Byrd were White and Babbitt were Black, there would have been riots, arson and looting. Personally, I would like him to receive justice.

I wouldn't put any stock in anything that Jonathan Turley says. He's a DAW who will say ANYTHING to get on television or in print. He was a legal witness in favour of the Impeachment of Bill Clinton - on Constitutional grounds, and again as a witness opposed to the impeachment of Donald Trump saying basically the opposite of what he said at the Clinton Impeachment.

 

[Dragonlady]

No, Babbitt was not committing a crime.
The person who broke the window in likely had committed a crime, but Babbitt was not.
Not following police orders is not a crime, but instead is an act of patriotism, considering police always have been abusive, in every known society.
Police legally are supposed to follow OUR orders, not be giving orders.

Babbitt committing a crime - as all of the other people who have been convicted of similar crimes can attest.

If not following police orders is not justification for shooting unarmed defendants, why is the defense for police shooting unarmed black people always that if they had followed police orders, they would not have been shot. If Ashli Babbitt had followed police orders, she would not have been shot.

This was an illegal insurrection and Babbitt was no patriot.

You seem to have no problem with police attacking BLM protestors violently. Why do you expect right wing protestors to be treated differently?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I wouldn't put any stock in anything that Jonathan Turley says. He's a DAW who will say ANYTHING to get on television or in print. He was a legal witness in favour of the Impeachment of Bill Clinton - on Constitutional grounds, and again as a witness opposed to the impeachment of Donald Trump saying basically the opposite of what he said at the Clinton Impeachment.

Just like we, the rational and intelligent judicious posters, give no credence to anything you post.
You're a reflexive squawk box I've yet to see a single worthwhile post from you.

Turley makes many intelligent legal points here. And you...not so much.

Trespassing is NOT a crime punishable by murder...period!

 

[Turtlesoup]

More bullshit. The bibbit is dead. He was cleared. Nothing you can say or wish is going to change that.

New Congress 2022-----and a new investigation on his criminal ass.

 

[Dragonlady]

Just like we, the rational and intelligent judicious posters, give no credence to anything you post.
You're a reflexive squawk box I've yet to see a single worthwhile post from you.

Turley makes many intelligent legal points here. And you...not so much.

Trespassing is NOT a crime punishable by murder...period!

I've been insulted by a fool on the internet who has previously posted his whole intention here is to belittle other posters. How will I ever survive this pointless attack?

Criminal trespassing, threatening the lives of members of Congress, break and enter, assault, black suspects are killed for far less and you have no problem with that - ever. When you start howling over the non-crimes committed by the black victims of police violence, I will believe you really care about the rights of suspects. Until then, this is just another hypocritical statement by the most hypocritical of partisan shills - Professor Turley.

 

[Doc7505]

I wouldn't put any stock in anything that Jonathan Turley says. He's a DAW who will say ANYTHING to get on television or in print. He was a legal witness in favour of the Impeachment of Bill Clinton - on Constitutional grounds, and again as a witness opposed to the impeachment of Donald Trump saying basically the opposite of what he said at the Clinton Impeachment.

~~~~~~

Portland protesters barricade courthouse with federal officers inside, then try to set it on fire

Portland protesters barricaded federal officers inside a courthouse — and tried to set the building on fire — as the two groups clashed again Tuesday night into Wednesday. As hundreds c…

nypost.com

**********​

Rioters Set Fire to Federal Courthouse in Portland One Day after Fencing Removed

Rioters targeted the federal courthouse in Portland, Ore., on Thursday evening in renewed clashes between demonstrators and federal police. The attack on the courthouse came one day after authorities removed fencing initially erected over the summer, in response to continued riots following the...

news.yahoo.com

***********​

Antifa Attacks Portland Federal Courthouse for Two Nights in a Row, Again Building an Occupied Zone

redstate.com

How many of those one hundred odd BLM/Antifa anarchist have been convicted and sent to jail for attempt arson and use of explosives in the insurrection in Portland?
The fact is they were booked and released.
Point of fact there was no arson involved in the Jan 6th protest and no destruction of property.

 

[Doc7505]

Not a single officer at the Capitol that day was threatened with deadly force. If they had been, other rioters would have been shot. “Context” shows that the officer’s lives were not in danger, and no other officer present thought that they were. This includes the officers who had their guns drawn right alongside Byrd; even they did not fire.
Someone crawling through a broken window? Haul them through, put them in zip ties, pass them to another officer to take away, or tell them to sit down and don’t move. Byrd was not a homeowner at night in the dark, defending his home while alone. He was a trained LEO, with armed fellow officers by his side, and still had a barrier between himself and other rioters, who were not known to have been armed (and were, in fact, not armed).
The video shows that before Bird fired that fatal shot there were at least three or moe police officers behind Ashli Babbitt ready to arrest her.
Bird should be indicted and prosecuted just as Chauvin and Potter for using excessive and illegal force in killing Babbitt.
The fact is that this murderer is being protected by Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commies.
The fact remains that a law enforcement D.C. officer killed a Trump-supporter, ostensibly without factual/lawful basis for using deadly force. The PM/DSA Democrat Commies and their complicit media shills couldn’t care less, because the narrative doesn’t suit their aims. To them, this was a righteous kill; one less conservative “insurrectionist” in American society to worry about.

 

[Chillicothe]

May Jesus and other gods give grace to her soul and bring peace to her family over this christianist holiday, but......but Babbitt is dead because of Babbitt.

Put that on your bumper-sticker.

 

[Dragonlady]

~~~~~~

Portland protesters barricade courthouse with federal officers inside, then try to set it on fire

Portland protesters barricaded federal officers inside a courthouse — and tried to set the building on fire — as the two groups clashed again Tuesday night into Wednesday. As hundreds c…

nypost.com

**********​

Rioters Set Fire to Federal Courthouse in Portland One Day after Fencing Removed

Rioters targeted the federal courthouse in Portland, Ore., on Thursday evening in renewed clashes between demonstrators and federal police. The attack on the courthouse came one day after authorities removed fencing initially erected over the summer, in response to continued riots following the...

news.yahoo.com

***********​

Antifa Attacks Portland Federal Courthouse for Two Nights in a Row, Again Building an Occupied Zone

redstate.com

How many of those one hundred odd BLM/Antifa anarchist have been convicted and sent to jail for attempt arson and use of explosives in the insurrection in Portland?
The fact is they were booked and released.
Point of fact there was no arson involved in the Jan 6th protest and no destruction of property.

Not a comparison at all for the following reasons:

• A state court house is not the seat of government, nor do government leaders regularly attend or meet there.
• The court house was attacked at night, not while court was in session;
• There was no stated intention to take actions against, or to harm any people in the court house.
• Fires set inside Portland federal courthouse fence; 18 arrested on federal charges - KTVZ
• I watched on TV as the insurrectionists destroyed a LOT of property on January 6th - windows and doors smashed, property stolen out of offices and the Floor of the House and Senate.
• The Associated Press investigated all of the hundreds of arrests in Portland and elsewhere, and this is what THEY found:

AP finds most arrested in protests aren't leftist radicals

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump portrays the hundreds of people arrested nationwide in protests against racial injustice as violent urban left-wing radicals.

apnews.com

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I've been insulted by a fool on the internet who has previously posted his whole intention here is to belittle other posters. How will I ever survive this pointless attack?

Did I? When did I do that?

Criminal trespassing, threatening the lives of members of Congress, break and enter, assault, black suspects are killed for far less and you have no problem with that - ever.

Trespassing is not a capitol offense and unless you have video of Ashley Babbitt breaking into the Capitol
itself you should stop with the lies. Same with threatening lives of members of Congress.
You're a real whacked out joke.
I won't even dignify your attempts to make this a racial issue, desperate moron.

When you start howling over the non-crimes committed by the black victims of police violence, I will believe you really care about the rights of suspects.

Like Jussie Smollett? When you start to object to an unarmed woman being shot to death
by a Capiltol policeman I'll start to believe what you claim to believe in and not.

Until then, this is just another hypocritical statement by the most hypocritical of partisan shills - Professor Turley.

Your ad homs of Jonathan Turley seem desperate and absurd. Feel free to actually take on what
Turley has brought up about extra judicial executions by Officer Byrd.
We both know you can't, however.

 

[Coyote]

Did I? When did I do that?

Trespassing is not a capitol offense and unless you have video of Ashley Babbitt breaking into the Capitol
itself you should stop with the lies. Same with threatening lives of members of Congress.
You're a real whacked out joke.
I won't even dignify your attempts to make this a racial issue, desperate moron.


Like Jussie Smollett? When you start to object to an unarmed woman being shot to death
by a Capiltol policeman I'll start to believe what you claim to believe in and not.



Your ad homs of Jonathan Turley seem desperate and absurd. Feel free to actually take on what
Turley has brought up about extra judicial executions by Officer Byrd.
We both know you can't, however.

Yet you are perfectly fine with Chauvin’s extra judicial killing of an armed man.

 

[Coyote]

~~~~~~

Portland protesters barricade courthouse with federal officers inside, then try to set it on fire

Portland protesters barricaded federal officers inside a courthouse — and tried to set the building on fire — as the two groups clashed again Tuesday night into Wednesday. As hundreds c…

nypost.com

**********​

Rioters Set Fire to Federal Courthouse in Portland One Day after Fencing Removed

Rioters targeted the federal courthouse in Portland, Ore., on Thursday evening in renewed clashes between demonstrators and federal police. The attack on the courthouse came one day after authorities removed fencing initially erected over the summer, in response to continued riots following the...

news.yahoo.com

***********​

Antifa Attacks Portland Federal Courthouse for Two Nights in a Row, Again Building an Occupied Zone

redstate.com

How many of those one hundred odd BLM/Antifa anarchist have been convicted and sent to jail for attempt arson and use of explosives in the insurrection in Portland?
The fact is they were booked and released.
Point of fact there was no arson involved in the Jan 6th protest and no destruction of property.

The ones who committed arson were arreste, tried and given stiff sentence, much stiffer than the insurrection it’s.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yet you are perfectly fine with Chauvin’s extra judicial killing of an armed man.

Don't pretend to tell me what I think about the death of St. George Floyd.
It's stupid and biased.

George Floyd died of a drug overdose. Not due to a Minneapolis PD approved method for controlling
suspects under arrest.

A man with a non compromised heart due to epic abuse of drugs would not have died due to someone's knee
on the back of his neck.

 

[Dragonlady]

Did I? When did I do that?

Trespassing is not a capitol offense and unless you have video of Ashley Babbitt breaking into the Capitol
itself you should stop with the lies. Same with threatening lives of members of Congress.
You're a real whacked out joke.
I won't even dignify your attempts to make this a racial issue, desperate moron.


Like Jussie Smollett? When you start to object to an unarmed woman being shot to death
by a Capiltol policeman I'll start to believe what you claim to believe in and not.


Your ad homs of Jonathan Turley seem desperate and absurd. Feel free to actually take on what
Turley has brought up about extra judicial executions by Officer Byrd.
We both know you can't, however.

Every time you post asshole.

Your entire paragraph is a denial of the facts, the law, and what happened on January 6th. I'm not trying to make this about race. I'm making it about YOUR HYPOCRISY. How you complain that a member of the military who attacked the Capitol got herself shot and killed because she broke the law, because she was unarmed. The officer who shot this woman who was attacking his position, had no way of knowing, whether or not she was armed, and he was sworn to protect the lives of the members of Congress.

Yet when unarmed black suspects are shot by the police, you've got 10 different excuses as to why it's OK for the police to shoot and kill unarmed black suspects, none of whom are being attacked by the person they kill, but not an insurrectionist violently attacking the Capitol.

I'm not wasting my time reading bullshit by a paid shill like Turley. His opinion is based on how much he's being paid, and by whom.